FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Both opinions come in pro se appeals from decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article predicting “[w]hy the Supreme Court may choose to uphold Trump’s tariffs: ‘It would be incredibly disruptive to unscramble those eggs’”;
• an article indicating the “U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear new patent cases for nearly three years has frustrated parties that suffer appellate losses and left the Federal Circuit as the final arbiter over legal disputes that divide the patent bar”;
• a blog post reporting how a “number of amici weighed in . . .  to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to grant a petition asking the Justices to consider whether, “in a patent-infringement suit, a court may consider after-arising technology to hold that the patent is invalid under § 112(a) of the Patent Act”; and
• an article discussing how a “recent U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruling — now on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — threatens to impose retroactive duties on importers of solar cells and modules.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case, and both nonprecedential opinions come in appeals from the Court of Federal Claims–one in a vaccine case and one in a government contract case. Here are introductions to the opinions.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In the case, C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., C.R. Bard challenges rulings concerning patent eligibility, definiteness, and anticipation, among other issues. Judges Lourie, Reyna, and Chen heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, an errata, and a Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims. One of the nonprecedential opinions addresses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other comes in a pro se appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the errata and Rule 36 judgment.

This morning, the Federal Circuit announced that the Clerk’s Office and Circuit Library will be temporarily unavailable for public services and support this afternoon. Electronic filing will be available. Here is the full text of the announcement.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, a new amicus brief was filed in the case addressing President Trump’s tariffs. Regarding pending petitions, since our last update a petition was filed in a government contract case, a waiver of the right to respond was filed in a pro se case, five amicus briefs were filed in a patent case, one amicus brief was filed in a takings case, and a petition in a pro se case was denied. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. The case, REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., raises questions relating to eligibility of a genetically engineered cultured host cell that contains nucleic acid sequences from at least two different organisms spliced together into a single molecule. This case asks whether a district court erred in holding patent claims ineligible because the inventors merely “combined natural products and put them in a host cell.” Judges Dyk, Hughes, and Stoll heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released six precedential opinions, six nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Of the precedential opinions, three come in patent cases, while one comes in an antidumping trade case. Of the nonprecedential opinions, three come in patent cases, one comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and two come in cases dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here are introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions for en banc rehearing were filed, one raising questions related to claim construction and Rule 36 summary affirmances and one raising questions related to awards of attorneys’ fees and obviousness. The Federal Circuit also denied petitions for en banc rehearing in two cases, one raising a question related to claim construction and one raising questions related to Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the details.